This position paper proposes the development of a reality checklist for multi-device systems in the wild. The checklist will help researchers evaluate designs, design ideas or design specifications for a system before it is deployed in the wild

Houben, S

Klokmose, C

Korsgaard, H

UCL Discovery

A Reality Checklist for Multi-DeviceSystems in the Wild?Henrik KorsgaardDepartment of ComputerScienceAarhus Universitykorsgaard@cs.au.dkSteven HoubenICRI-Cities & UCLICUniversity College Londons.houben@ucl.ac.ukClemens NylandstedKlokmoseDepartment of ComputerScienceAarhus Universityclemens@cs.au.dkCopyright is held by the author/owner(s). Presented at the Cross-Surface ’15workshop, in conjunction with ACM ITS’15. November 15, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal.AbstractThis position paper proposes the development of a realitychecklist for multi-device systems in the wild. The checklistwill help researchers evaluate designs, design ideas or de-sign specifications for a system before it is deployed in thewild.Author KeywordsChecklists, multi-device ecologies, in-the-wildACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI)]:MiscellaneousIntroductionIn our research community we have a strong interest in un-derstanding how technology can augment our everydayactivities whether at home, at work, in the city, or in the lo-cal library. The technological advancement now allows usto explore systems or applications that span multiple de-vices both personal devices such as smartphones, tabletsand laptops, and shared devices such as interactive wall ortabletop displays. We know from the literature that enticingpeople to interact with a system in a public or semi-publicsetting is challenging. It has been explored and discussedin work on tabletops [10, 7], public displays and interac-tive walls [8, 3], media architecture [4], and in combinations2015-10 46of public displays and personal devices [5, 9]. In our ownwork with building and deploying multi-device systems (e.g.[11, 13]) we have experienced that the challenges multi-ply with the complexity of the ecology, particularly wheninvolving peoples’ personal devices, spatially distributeddevices and/or networked infrastructure. Ironically, whilemost of us automatically reach for our smartphone as soonas there is a break in our busy life, getting us to take ourphone out of the pocket to interact with a system in the wildis hard and people are reluctant to install applications ontheir device(s) on the spot [5]. For instance, Müller & Krüger[9] describe a system of 20 public advertisement displaysinstalled in shops in a large German city running over thecourse of a year where people could use their phones toget rebate coupons. Only 37 coupons were redeemed. An-other example is the CHI 2013 Interactive Schedule [13].It was similarly based on a number of large (semi) publicdisplays showing video previews for upcoming paper ses-sions. The system allowed for advanced interaction throughthe conference smartphone app over the local network. Pa-pers featured on the large displays could be added to users’personal schedules and it was possible to create customplaylists for display on the large display. The WiFi at theconference center was (as always at large conferences) un-stable, therefore obstructing the smartphone to public dis-play interaction. No one noticed, as no one got their phoneout of their pockets at the displays. In both cases there canbe many explanations to why so few (or none) interactedwith the system as intended by the designers.With this position paper we propose the need for analyti-cal tools to help us as researchers to systematically realitycheck designs, design specifications or design ideas formulti-device systems that are to be deployed in the wild, tocatch our blind spots for potential interaction show stoppersbefore the system meets actual use.Checklists and walkthroughsAnalytical tools in HCI and interaction design serve asmeans for evaluating a design or a specification for a de-sign before involving real users. The cognitive walkthrough[12] is a well-known example. The method forces the an-alyst to break down and question each step involved incompleting a task with the given user interface, to verify ifa potential user will be able to select an appropriate actionat each step. The cognitive walkthrough takes its startingpoint in an engaged user that is motivated to interact withthe system. We are interested in analytical means to as-sess the situation that precedes and surrounds the actualinteraction with the system. The activity walkthrough [2] isan extension of the cognitive walkthrough that emphasizesa contextualization of the use situation. This includes con-sidering the activities the use situation is part of, the users’previous experiences with similar user interfaces, and previ-ous experience with realizing their activity without the givenuser interface. Similarly, the activity checklist [6] is intendedto elucidate the most important contextual factors of a userinterface including a focus on user goals and social andphysical aspects of the environment. We will in the followingpresent a set of themes that we believe could form the initialfoundation for a reality checklist for multi-device systems.Outlining a ChecklistIn the following we outline a checklists based on a prelim-inary analysis of our own cases and the related work. Thechecklist is based on themes divided into individual focusareas, which are accompanied by specific questions. A noto each of these questions should be seen as a red flagrequiring further investigation.2015-10 47Physical properties and visibilityDistance Is the system visible to potential users?Is the system discernible at the distance users firstencounter it?Is the users’ view to the system clear of obstructions?Movement Does the system align with the way people would moveor sit in a space?Is the system aligned with the flow and existing layout ofthe physical space?Orientation Does the system align well with how people orient them-selves in the physical space (e.g. opposite of doorwaysand openings)?Does the system utilize how the existing physical layoutdirects attention?Quality Does the system support the existing functions, configu-ration and purpose of the physical environment?(Should it?)MaterialformDoes the system resemble what it is or indicate usethrough its form (e.g. interactive table/public display)?Is it easy to see what is part of the system and what isnot?Signs& instruc-tionsIs the system accompanied with symbols or instructionsexplaining what it is?Are there symbols/text indicating connectivity (e.g.WiFi/Bluetooth) or basic functionalities?SpatialdistributionDoes the system relate to other physical objects closeby?Are other artifacts in proximity of the system distinguish-able from it (information displays, signs, installations)?Physical properties and visibilityThe first step, which may seem banal, is to ensure that po-tential users are aware of the system. This entails lookingat the context wherein the potential use will occur: How dopeople move and orient themselves in the physical space,distance, orientation, obstructions etc. (see e.g. [1])? Howis the system is represented in the physical space, the ma-terial form, position, signs and spatial relationship? HowUnderstanding interactionInput &outputIs the interaction understandable (without other peopleusing the system)?Is it easy to discern how to interact with the system atfirst encounter?Is it easy to understand the input/output relation?Does the system tease potential users with animations,examples, graphics, audio etc.?Skill & time Is interacting with the system easy for new-comers?Is it comprehensive how much time interaction will take?Does interaction ‘end’?Reward Will interacting with the system reward potential users?Is there a clear outcome?SocialdynamicsIs interaction with the system aligned with social normsor existing social interactions?Is how the system expose or draw attention to usersdeliberately thought through?should potential users might recognise elements of the sys-tem and draw on initial familiarity? After all, a display mightjust be a display in the crudest sense and input/out devicesmight be more or less hidden or the connection betweenthem might be less obvious.Understanding interactionOnce potential users have some awareness of the system,making sense of and identifying how one might interact withthe system is the next step. Understanding how one inter-acts with a system might prompt actual interaction, under-standing what one signs up for and/or participate in is keypart of the decision process leading to initial interaction,and understanding some of the social dynamics of interact-ing with a table or pulling out a personal device is equallyimportant [8, 3].2015-10 48MotivationGoals &IncentivesDoes the goal of using the system align well with poten-tial goals of potential users?Are there incentives for walking up and using the sys-tem?Investment& timeIs the required degree of personal investment for inter-action acceptable for the users?Do the users have the time for it?Do the users want to get their smartphones out of theirpockets for this?MotivationThe motivation for approaching and initiating interaction iskey in understanding how potential users negotiate whetherthey want to try, look and/or continue their activities. Extrin-sic and intrinsic motivation both play a role. Systems withinwork settings or systems offering essential information offerextrinsic incentives and other potential users are driven byintrinsic motivation (playful, curious, fascination with tech-nology etc.). Understanding motivation from a user’s per-spective will help reveal shortcomings or just a basic chal-lenge in the design.Technical obstructionsLastly, when we have convinced a potential user, they needto be able to participate and use the system. For systemsthat utilise personal devices, some initiation and configu-ration is often needed, and in systems that relies on userinformation (login, profiles etc.) there is some overhead insetting up or logging into the system. Putting a personal de-vice on an interactive table or logging into a public displayalso involves issue of trust and might make potential usersreconsider interaction even when they have their smart-phone out of their pockets.Technical issuesConnection& Compat-ibilityIs it quick to connect to the installation?Is the system compatible will all kinds of user devices?Is a password or a login required?Configuration Can users avoid installing anything on their personaldevices?Can they avoid changing settings?Is setup simple and consisting only of very few steps?Trust &SecurityDoes the system keep personal data safe?If interaction is logged, is it for the immediate benefit ofthe users?Can the user remove her profile/history/device from thesystem?Can others access users’ data, if so is this made clearto the users?Summing upThe themes and tables presented above outline a very pre-liminary reality checklist for multi-device systems when de-ploying these in the wild. We hope this proposal will sparkdiscussion at the workshop and that the participants willhelp us move towards a more complete reality checklist.REFERENCES1. Till Ballendat, Nicolai Marquardt, and Saul Greenberg.2010. Proxemic Interaction: Designing for a Proximityand Orientation-aware Environment. In ACMInternational Conference on Interactive Tabletops andSurfaces (ITS ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA,121–130. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1936652.19366762. Olav W Bertelsen. 2004. The activity walkthrough: anexpert review method based on activity theory. InProceedings of the third Nordic conference onHuman-computer interaction. ACM, 251–254.3. Harry Brignull and Yvonne Rogers. 2003. Enticingpeople to interact with large public displays in public2015-10 49spaces. In Proceedings of INTERACT, Vol. 3. 17–24.4. Martin Brynskov, Peter Dalsgaard, Tobias Ebsen,Jonas Fritsch, Kim Halskov, and Rune Nielsen. 2009.Staging urban interactions with media façades. InHuman-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2009.Springer, 154–167.5. Nigel Davies, Adrian Friday, Peter Newman, SarahRutlidge, and Oliver Storz. 2009. Using bluetoothdevice names to support interaction in smartenvironments. In Proceedings of the 7th internationalconference on Mobile systems, applications, andservices. ACM, 151–164.6. Victor Kaptelinin, Bonnie A Nardi, and CatrionaMacaulay. 1999. Methods & tools: The activitychecklist: a tool for representing the âA˘IJspaceâA˘I˙ ofcontext. interactions 6, 4 (1999), 27–39.7. Paul Marshall, Richard Morris, Yvonne Rogers, StefanKreitmayer, and Matt Davies. 2011. Rethinking’Multi-user’: An In-the-wild Study of How GroupsApproach a Walk-up-and-use Tabletop Interface. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, NewYork, NY, USA, 3033–3042. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.19793928. Jörg Müller, Florian Alt, Daniel Michelis, and AlbrechtSchmidt. 2010. Requirements and design space forinteractive public displays. In Proceedings of theinternational conference on Multimedia. ACM,1285–1294.9. Jörg Müller and Antonio Krüger. 2009. MobiDiC:context adaptive digital signage with coupons.Springer.10. Rune Nielsen, Jonas Fritsch, Kim Halskov, and MartinBrynskov. 2009. Out of the Box: Exploring theRichness of Children’s Use of an Interactive Table. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference onInteraction Design and Children (IDC ’09). ACM, NewYork, NY, USA, 61–69. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1551788.155180011. Anna Maria Polli, Matthias Korn, and ClemensNylandsted Klokmose. 2013. Local area artworks:collaborative art interpretation on-site. In Proceedingsof the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive andubiquitous computing adjunct publication. ACM, 79–82.12. Peter G Polson, Clayton Lewis, John Rieman, andCathleen Wharton. 1992. Cognitive walkthroughs: amethod for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces.International Journal of man-machine studies 36, 5(1992), 741–773.13. Arvind Satyanarayan, Daniel Strazzulla, Clemens NKlokmose, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Wendy EMackay. 2013. The CHI 2013 interactive schedule. InCHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors inComputing Systems. ACM, 2987–2990.2015-10 50

A Reality Checklist for Multi-Device Systems in the Wild?

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1528768/1/Houben%20A%20Reality%20Checklist%20for%20Multi-Device%20systems%20in%20the%20wild.pdf

A Reality Checklist for Multi-Device Systems in the Wild?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery